Cole-Hatchard v. Cole-Hatchard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cole-Hatchard v. Cole-Hatchard

294 A.D.2d 529, 742 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 529 (Cole-Hatchard v. Cole-Hatchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cole-Hatchard v. Cole-Hatchard, 294 A.D.2d 529, 742 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered July 6, 2000, as directed the allocation of his interest in his pension assets to be made by a qualified domestic relations order.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision thereof directing the allocation of the plaintiff’s interest in his pension assets is vacated.

The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement which fully resolved the distribution of the marital property. It provided for the distribution of certain marital assets to the defendant and that the plaintiff would receive the [530]*530balance of the marital property. Since the agreement made no provision for the distribution of the plaintiffs police pension assets to the defendant, the Supreme Court erred in directing the allocation of those assets (see Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 291 AD2d 474; Cappello v Cappello, 286 AD2d 360; March v March, 233 AD2d 371, 372; Ramsperger v Ramsperger, 120 AD2d 940, 941). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered July 6, 2000, as directed the allocation of his interest in his pension assets to be made by a qualified domestic relations order.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the provision thereof directing the allocation of the plaintiff’s interest in his pension assets is vacated.

The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement which fully resolved the distribution of the marital property. It provided for the distribution of certain marital assets to the defendant and that the plaintiff would receive the [530]*530balance of the marital property. Since the agreement made no provision for the distribution of the plaintiffs police pension assets to the defendant, the Supreme Court erred in directing the allocation of those assets (see Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 291 AD2d 474; Cappello v Cappello, 286 AD2d 360; March v March, 233 AD2d 371, 372; Ramsperger v Ramsperger, 120 AD2d 940, 941). Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 529, 742 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-hatchard-v-cole-hatchard-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack